Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Why is my paper very difficult to be published?

  1. May 3, 2006 #1
    Why is my paper very difficult to be published?

    My paper entitled Advanced gravity theory, I have submitted it hundreds times, but I still failed. I am very doubtful on this bother. Why my paper is so difficult to be published? Some editors said my paper's quality doesn't reach their scientific standard. But as I looked other paper, their quality is even lower than my paper, but they can be published. Such as, the reviews and some arguments.

    I am very bothering on this problem.

    Besides some people prevent my paper's publication, I tried to find out the reason.

    I tried divination, the result told me, my paper can't use the usual method to done. I need to ask for professional peoples' experience and opinion.

    Are there any professional people here?

    Could you teach me how to solve this problem?

    Attached Files:

  2. jcsd
  3. May 3, 2006 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    For an editor it's enough to read your first sentence
    to make the decision.

    GR is not wrong. It's not a complete description of everything, but definitely a good theory on large scales.
  4. May 3, 2006 #3
    haha, now it is not the time to decide my paper's right and wrong...

    But I have interest to know why my paper is too difficult to be published.
  5. May 3, 2006 #4
    I think there are many reasons :
    - first of all, you do not cite any other work that Einstein's work. No references, even a GR book. So, how can we think that your work is serious ?
    - your first introduction sentence is : "Einstein's General relativity is wrong" !!! You can't say that !! Einstein GR have produce many very good results !!
    - can you proove your theory ?

    I think that you are maybe too trustful in your work... And I think that's why your paper had not been accepted...
  6. May 3, 2006 #5
    What publishers look for is advancement of science. They want a clear headed, well written and in the case of general relativity, heavily mathematical paper which starts from several base ideas and logically develops them to results which can be experimentally checked.

    Your paper has several problems. You use MS Word converted into pdf for starters. True, it's mainly asthetics, but any self respecting person doing physics and publishing papers will take the time to learn Latex. Hell, I did it for my 3rd year projects!! Secondly, your paper has diagrams which say 'I'm attempting to justify bad ideas with terrible pictures'. Compare your pictures to say Penrose diagrams. They are based on very deep mathemtical ideas, like compactification. Your are vague representations of notions you've had.
    That isn't what he meant (I think). You are wrong to say 'General Relativity is wrong'. Clearly GR is correct (to a high level of sensitivity) in a HUGE amount of things. The modelling of the Solar system, satellites andneutron stars shows GR is at least in the right ball park.

    True, there isn't a physicist who will say 'GR is 100% right' but 100 years of experimental data matching theory is pretty damn compelling.

    Your paper has zero maths in it other than the utmost basic expressions school children learn when they are 15 in 'Science 101'. You talk about things like vacuum energy, but do you know anything about the Casimir effect? Normal ordering? Wicks theorem? The positive energy theorem? Wittens equation? Extremal black holes?

    NOTHING in your paper makes me think 'This person is well read and extremely well educated in this area, he has spent many hours/days/weeks researching this material and developing his ideas in a sound logical manner.' Instead it screams 'This person has a series of initial assumptions about established theories which he attempts to back up with no logic, no mathematics and rubbish diagrams'.

    Have you ever read proper research papers by people like Green, Witten, Schwarz, Townsend (all string theories, I've been reading their papers recently). They are well presented, use a HUGE amount of mathematics and constantly reference well established works. Your paper has none of these things. It looks like a terrible attempt at a high school write up of a bad science experiment!

    My father reviews papers for a computer mesh generation journal and if he saw something as clearly amateurish, logically inconsistent, flawed, childish and clearly biased without attempt to even learn material you claim to be refuting, he'd just click 'delete' immediately.

    I know you've been touting this tosh for ages now because I've seen previous threads on this paper you started on these forums. Here's a hint, give it up. You clearly know nothing about any kind of 'high energy physics', your paper is an amateurish joke and you're only going to keep getting rejections and scathing replies like this one if you continue trying to claim it's somehow a superior theory.


    God I love smacking down newbie fools, gives me that warm tingling feeling!
    Last edited: May 3, 2006
  7. May 3, 2006 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    But it's simply incorrect to write that "GR is wrong".
    Instead you need to state in what regimes your theory gives better predictions.
  8. May 3, 2006 #7


    User Avatar

    You have no references!!!

    The style of your paper is lacking a scientific writing style, ie. it looks amateurish with regard to, eg. the figures, use of colour etc. It looks like it's been done for a webpage.

    You simply can't put stuff like, "discovered by me" without backing it up by references into what other people have done in the past, and why it's different to their work.

    (I speak through experience with publishing in Phys. Rev. etc.)
  9. May 3, 2006 #8
    Wait, wait..... your first sentence is bad enough, but your second sentence says
    ERrr..... It's GR which says singulaties EXIST!!!! In the bad phrasing of Chandler from Friends 'Could you be any more wrong?!'.

    Aside from all the problems your paper has that I mentioned in my last post, you manage to make yourself look completely ignorant on the subject of GR in your opening paragraph!

    In the style of Dr Cox from 'Scrubs' "My God Barbie, could you be any more wrong?! You try and you try but still you come across as the blind ignorant doctor would couldn't fight his way out of a wet paper bag!!

    Now run home Britney, I hear your linear algrebra text book calling due to neglect!"
  10. May 3, 2006 #9
    :biggrin: :rofl:
  11. May 3, 2006 #10


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Wing-Sin YU I see you are 17 years old, how can you pretend to know "advanced physics"?

    My advice, keep your own ideas to yourself and take first a Bachelor's and then higher degrees in physics until you have obtained a PhD from a reputable university, the University of Hong Kong will do nicely, and re-examine your ideas in light of your recently gained knowledge.

    Then you will know why your present papers have not been accepted for publication, and you may then have the ability to salvage them for re-writing in an acceptable form or the insight to 'bin' them for good.

    In order to earn the respect to seriously criticise the status quo you have to show that you understand it from the inside out.

    All the best!

  12. May 3, 2006 #11
    Haha, now I know who you are.

    I think there is no use to listen to Naturx journal's editors' nonsense.

    I am waiting for the time.

    :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
  13. May 3, 2006 #12

    I really don't know what part of my paper is about the light.

    Is it about the dark matters? Or about the space curving?
  14. May 3, 2006 #13


    User Avatar

    http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=in light of

    in light of

    Also, in the light of; in view of. In consideration of, in relationship to. For example, In light of recent developments, we're postponing our meeting, or In the light of the weather forecast we've canceled the picnic, or He got a special bonus in view of all the extra work he had done. The first two of these terms date from the late 1600s, the third from about 1800.
  15. May 3, 2006 #14
    Also, the "advanced" means "forward", not "top". This was my dictionary's problem. Advanced physical union means, a physical union advances the physics.

    Also, one point is very important. Although we study physics, we likes to study special physics, this is just our strength. Such as, the supernature, mystery and ... ...

    haha, I admit my knowledge is limited... But I still support my this paper Advanced gravity theory, it is not I like money and fame, it is because only my private problem.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook